VILLAGE OF SUGAR GROVE

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Irv Ochsenschlager at 7:00 p.m. in the Village Board Room.

Plan Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) members present:

Steve Benesch, Bob Dray, Andy Konovodoff, Irv Ochsenschlager, Ryan Reuland,

Ed Saloga, Brian Schiber. Quorum present.

Also present: Scott Buening, Community Development Director, Nancy Zak, Recording Secretary.

The Public Hearing was opened at 7:03 p.m. Quorum present. Chairman Ochsenschlager swore in those giving testimony.

Mr. Jacik of FGM Architects and Engineers, presented the petition. He stated the Fire Protection District was going to relocate its station to the site at the southwest corner of Municipal Drive and Route 30.

In order to do so they must be granted approval by the Village for a Special Use in the M-1 District, a Variance to allow a front yard building setback of 52' instead of the minimum required 75' and a Variance to waive the landscape screening requirement for property adjacent to an institutional use. The size of the site is 4.065 acres. The Fire District recently closed on this property for the site of a new headquarters fire station.

Jacik stated the 26,160 square foot building would be of brick construction, closely matching the materials of the Municipal Building, with a metal roof. There would be four bays for trucks and vehicles located centrally, an apparatus bay, with space allotted for an administration office, and residential,bunk/sleeping areas, a kitchen, meeting rooms and quarters for the 24-hour manned station.

The drive would line up with the Municipal building drive. The bays would be drive through for the apparatus. The planned training room would accommodate 8 people. There would be a large space designated for volunteer use.

Jacik then addressed the request for the variance for the front yard set back from the required 75' to 52'. If they were to meet the 75' setback, there would have to be significant engineering revisions and necessitate a reduction in the size of the headquarters building. The property is adjacent to Municipal Drive and Route 30 where large setbacks are required. Also there are wetlands and a drainage way that traverse the property that have an impact on where the building can be placed on the property.

Detention ponds would be provided on the north and south sides of the site. The District would fill in and enclose part of the existing wetland into a storm sewer system. They would also be accommodating pass through drainage by swale and storm sewer improvements on the property with a 24" drainpipe. These improvements would comply with the Kane County Stormwater Ordinance.

Saloga questioned when fire-fighting personnel would go to full time? Assistant Chief Wayne Parson responded the department does have full time people now. As the Village grows the District will hire more people. Jacik added the facility would take into consideration that the space would have to be planned to accommodate both men and women.

Schiber asked what would happen to the vacated building? Parson said a couple of entities have expressed interest in it, one being the Park District.

A question was raised by a Dugan Woods resident if the new location of the fire station would have ready access to Dugan Woods? Parson said for emergency purposes they will make a left turn on Route 30 to get to that location until a road is in place. Parson said the new location would be a better spot for the growth of the community. The current station is right next to the school, which is not a good situation.

Herb Steinmetz of 8 Saddlewood, Aurora, asked how the new station would be paid for and what cost was involved? Parson stated a 20-year debt bond, for which the bonds have been issued and sold, would pay for the project. Parson stated the anticipated cost is 2.8 million, with the possibility of a cost of 3.2/5.3 million. They have 3.7 million to work with now.

Jamie White asked if the building would be entirely brick? Jacik indicated it would be. White asked if a landscape plan had been drawn. Jacik stated yes a plan for the perimeter of the site had been submitted to the Village that day.

Buening stated there was no Public Comment, either in the form of phone calls or written,objecting to the Petition.

Saloga asked Jacik to display the building elevations again, which he did. Saloga suggested the elevation be revised to have more architectural interest, i.e. a cupola.

Dray focused upon the landscaping and wondered about the landscaped boulevard that had been proposed by the Village along Municipal Drive.

Buening told him it isn't anticipated to have the landscaping start at the point of the fire station location. There will be too many curb cuts. It will more likely start south of Bastian.

With no further questions or comments, Chairman Ochsenschlager closed the Public Hearing at 7:21 p.m.

Konovodoff, concerned with the future growth of Sugar Grove, expressed concern about the overland flood route as it transects the fire station property. He wanted to be certain the calcs for this site took that into consideration. Buening stated that the calcs need to be reviewed by the Village Engineer to be certain they meet the Kane County stormwater ordinance requirements. Jacik added that 60 acres of flood route would be routed around the site. A 24" drain pipe and detention pond takes care of that issue. Konovodoff, too made comment on the building elevation and suggested they do something about the flat roofline by adding a dormer element. Dray suggested the addition of an old time hose tower.

Konovodoff also had concerns about the landscape screening being waived.

Buening indicated the setback reduction would still require the building to have a generous front yard setback. Konovodoff wanted to see the landscape plans before making a decision on a recommendation.

Schiber asked Parson if the Fire District would make contribution for a future signal at Municipal Drive and Route 30 and if they were looking for preemption equipment? Parson indicated the District would give that consideration at an appropriate time.

Ochsenschlager then reviewed the Petitioner's requests.

The recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board.

The Staff conditions referred to in the above motion are as follows:

The building shall substantially be constructed to conform to the Dimensional and Utility Plan by Erickson Engineering Associates, Ltd, last revised 3/8-2004, and the Building Elevations Plan by FGM Architects, last revised 3/19/2004, except as such plans may be changed to conform to Village Codes and Ordinances and the conditions below.

A landscaping plan for the perimeter of the site and photometric lighting diagram shall be submitted with the building permit. Said plans shall comply with Village Ordinances.

The building elevations shall consist of a brick color that substantially matches the existing Village Hall color.

Proof of tax division shall be provided to the Village prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Quorum present as at roll call. Chairman Ochsenschlager opened the Public Hearing at 7:33 p.m. and swore in all those planning to testify.

Truck Sales/Zoning Ordinance Amendments

Jamie White, Attorney representing Oshkosh-McNeilus, gave the presentation. The request is for a Text Amendment, Special Use and Variance to allow truck sales in the M-1 District and to allow outdoor display. Public Notice was published in the "Beacon News".

Oshkosh-McNeilus constructed their warehousing and manufacturing facility on the site in 2002. They inquired about getting an Illinois dealer's license so they could sell trucks from this facility. Truck Sales was not a permitted or Special Use in the M-1 District. In order to allow Truck Sales as a Special Use they are requesting a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. If granted, there would not be a parking lot full of trucks. The Variance is needed to park a limited number of trucks in the front yard without having to have screening. They are asking to have added Truck Sales to Special Uses and for a variance to allow outdoor storage. The Village Board recently granted a temporary use for the dealership that lasts for a period of 6 months.

Buening interjected that since the hearing involved amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, as a matter of expedience, Staff also added several proposed changes to the zoning ordinance to correct and clarify several matters.

No one rose to ask questions, or speak in favor or opposition to the petition.

Staff had no input from the public regarding the proposal at this time.

Chairman Ochsenschlager closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.

Benesch asked Buening if the Village had received any comments from the property owners surrounding the site. Buening stated he did not receive any public input.

Schriber asked White how much sales tax the truck sales would bring to the Village itself? White responded he did not know.

Truck Sales/Zoning Ordinance Amendments

Note: Requests 1 through 4 are the Petitioner's. Requests 5 through 9 are submitted by Village Staff.

VOICE VOTE ON THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR.

Staff's conditions as referenced above are:

The Special Use is granted to Oshkosh-McNeilus at 490 Heartland Drive, and shall not be transferable to any subsequent owner other than subsidiaries of Oshkosh-McNeilus.

Truck sales shall be limited to new and reconditioned vehicles that are for sale. Sales shall be limited to cement mixers and waste hauling trucks. No trailers shall be offered for sale.

No additional lighting or signage is permitted by virtue of the Special use.

A total of two (2) trucks may be parked in the front of the facility. Said vehicles shall be in spaces specifically designated for parking of trucks. Any spaces lost due to the truck parking spaces shall be replaced at another location on the property in accordance with Village Ordinances.

Oshkosh shall use its best efforts to ensure that any sales or use tax that is generated by the sales of these trucks will be designated for the Village of Sugar Grove. If the "point of sale" for these vehicles can be relocated to

Truck Sales/Zoning Ordinance Amendments

Sugar Grove, Oshkosh will do so within 30 days of notification that such relocation is possible.

Quorum present as at roll call. Chairman Ochsenschlager opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. and swore in those planning to give testimony.

Attorney Stephen Rhoades, representing the Petitioner, Kackert Associates, Inc. gave the presentation.

Rhoades said the lots in question, some vacant, some under construction, are proposed to be annexed into the Village of Sugar Grove. They are in a subdivision that was platted in 1994 in unincorporated Kane County. In 2002, the Village began enforcing the requirement to have unincorporated property owners who wanted Village water or sewer service to annex to the Village or sign an annexation agreement if the property was not contiguous. Kackert purchased 18 lots that are contiguous to the Village, and is required to annex. When property is annexed, it comes into the Village with an R-1 designation. The lots, as platted, do not meet R-1 Zoning Ordinance requirements. An R-2 designation would. That is the reasoning behind the request to rezone from R-1 to R-2 after annexation.

The builder plans to construct single-family residences, which meets Comprehensive Plan designation. The streets are private streets and none of these roadways will be annexed nor maintained by the Village. Water and sanitary sewer are located within the private roadways to service this development. Stormwater requirements have been complied with through the Kane County approval process and no additional detention would be required.

The variances the Petitioner seeks are reduction of lot widths at the front property line from 50 feet to 20 feet, and a variance to allow all lots to have access and frontage only on private roads.

Rhoades stated if the builder wants municipal sewer and water he would have to annex. The lots will be developed as originally planned. The variances sought would not increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to this property or adjacent properties. The builder will be constructing high quality homes on the now vacant lots, which would not diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. This development would not increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highways. Single family homes would not be creating any nuisance. The development of the lots, with variances would not result in an increase in public expenditures. Rhoades offered Staff's report as proof of support of the rezoning and variances. He asked the Plan Commission/ZBA to recommend approval of the rezoning and variances to the Village Board.

The Village received letters in regard to the Petition from:

Jim Oberweis of 3 Buckingham Drive, Aurora communicated his opposition to the proposed rezoning in a letter dated April 13, 2004. He believed it was a step to annex Prestbury a piece at a time. The residents of Prestbury should have the right to collectively decide to annex or not and not be forced into annexation.

In a letter dated April 16, 2004, Linda Pettyjohn and Thomas Taylor, Prestbury property owners, expressed their opposition to the annexation of the parcel of property in question. Their concern was these property owners would be paying redundant fees for services and would create divisiveness among property owners.

Writing in his capacity as President of the Prestbury Citizens Association, Herbert Steinmetz filed their objection to the annexation of the lots referenced. The annexation does not include roads serving the property nor infrastructure that would normally be included in an annexation situation, such as this. Homeowners would be required to pay full real estate taxes without the corresponding benefits that would normally inure to residents of the Village. If properties in Prestbury are to be annexed, it should only be done as an entire unit with an understanding as to responsibility for all the normal municipal services. The letter was dated April 20, 2004.

Steinmetz, was given the floor and stated he objected to the annexation without dealing with the entire situation. Annexation should be done on a total basis. It's unfair to the people buying these lots to have to pay Homeowners Association fees and assessments included to maintain the roads. They would be paying taxes without the full benefits, including police protection. Buening stated these lots would be under Village contract for Police protection. Steinmetz said the water system was originally Prestbury's. Then the Village took it over. The Homeowners Association is in discussion with the Village with these matters at present.

Pat Stein, living behind Lots 578-579, said these lots should not be separated from the rest of Prestbury and was opposed to the annexation. These lots can still get water and sewer from Prestbury.

David Glynn, 6 Winthrop New Road, rose to speak in opposition to the annexation. He was concerned about the whole area being annexed. The 1994 plat included the whole of Prestbury, not just a part of it. It should remain whole.

Ron Hem, 2 Buckingham Drive, Aurora, asked the builder what the square footage and prices the proposed homes would carry. Patrick Kackert stated the square footages would be from 2,100 to 4,000 square feet, and priced from $320,000 to 1/2 million dollars.

Casey Halinski, 307 Normandie Dr., Was opposed to the annexation and rezoning. He felt an awkward situation already existed with the subdivision and this would exacerbate it.

Mr. Sanford, 1 Yorkshire, Prestbury, was not sure the lots in question should be taken out of the original PUD.

Attorney Rhoades informed the audience that State statutes dictates a municipality can either annex properties that are contiguous, or properties can annex by petition to the Village. The annexation being proposed is allowed by State law.

Kackert purchased the lots last year. He is not changing the already platted lots, not asking to change anything that is already out there.

Another member of the public questioned if there wasn't another solution to those lots being served with sewer and water, for instance wells and septic systems. Rhoades stated the lot sizes do not qualify for private well and septic systems.

Another had concern about which school district the taxes would go to from these lots. Buening stated, the school district benefiting from the lots would not change. It remains in the Aurora school district.

In regard to unfair taxes, Rhoades stated Kackert is making prospective property owners aware of the tax and dues to the association.

A member of the public asked how the lot sizes compared to the rest of Prestbury. Rhoades said some lots are larger, others the same. She also noticed there were several lots at the entrance to the subdivision. Rhoades stated those lots would adhere to the Village set backs. Buening said the setback will be the same or greater than the County's.

The question was asked if the existing trees on those lots would be saved? Kackert told her they are trying to save every tree they can. There is also a financial benefit to keeping as many trees as they can. The lots are more desirable.

The subject of road ownership came up once more. Buening stated it's the Prestbury's plan to turn certain roads over to the Township. Then they will become public roads.

With no further questions or comments from the public, Chairman Ochsenchlager closed the hearing at 8:17 p.m.

Saloga, Reuland and Schiber expressed their opinion that they were opposed to the Village forcing annexation, particularly piecemeal as is this Prestbury annexation. Buening informed the Commissioners that the Annexation approval is not within the purview of the Plan Commission/ZBA. It is the Village Board that considers and approves annexation. There are many other towns that have annexed piecemeal.

Benesch had concern about people purchasing these homes having to pay to different entities.

Petition 03-003: Hannaford Farm Subdivision: Approval of Findings of Fact (Vanguard Homes, LLC)

After review of the Findings of Fact prepared by the Village Planning Consultant, John Houseal

A MOTION WAS MADE BY BENESCH, SECONDED BY REULAND, TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE HANNAFORD FARM DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY JOHN HOUSEAL, DATED APRIL 14, 2004, AND TO FORWARD THE FINDINGS TO THE VILLAGE BOARD.

Hannaford Farm Findings of Fact

RECUSED: SALOGA

The Findings of Fact referenced in the above motion were as follows:

Petitioner: Vanguard Homes, LLC and Ed Saloga Builders, Inc.

Request:

Annexation from unincorporated Kane County into the Village of Sugar Grove.

Approval of an Annexation Agreement for the proposed Hannaford Farm Subdivision.

Zoning changes from Kane County F-Farming District to Village of Sugar Grove zoning R1- Low Density Residential District.

Approval of a Planned Unit Development for the Hannaford Farm development, including a subdivision for 139 single-family residential lots.

Approval of a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision and Preliminary Engineering for the Hannaford Farm Subdivision.

Description: A 139 lot single-family residential subdivision, with lots averaging approximately 16,850 square feet in area (no lot has an area of less than 15,000 square feet), and providing approximately 48 acres of open space.

Recommendation of the Plan Commission: The vote was 6 - 0 in favor of the proposed development, with the staff conditions recommended.

The physical design of the Planned Development: The physical design of the single-family residential planned development makes adequate provisions for public services, provides adequate control over pedestrian and bicycle circulation and vehicular traffic, provides for adequate lighting and parking, has provided for and protected designated open space, and furnished the amenities of light and air, recreation and visual enjoyment.

Compatibility with adjacent properties: The proposed single-family residential development is compatible with adjacent properties and land uses.

Desirability for the Village's tax base: The development is a desirable addition to the Village's property tax base, and should typically pay for public services that are required from it.

Compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and goals and policies of the Village: The proposed Hannaford Farm development is generally supportive of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Plan designates the subject property as Estate Residential. Estate residential is determined by the Comprehensive Plan to be single-family residential developments that do not exceed a gross density of 1.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Hannaford Farm development has a gross density of approximately 1.06 units per acre.

Other Comprehensive Plan objectives are identified below that are supported by the proposed Hannaford Farm development. The proposed Hannaford Farm subdivision will:

Provide for the annexation of lands necessary to accommodate the future growth of Sugar Grove, and control the quality and phasing of development.

Maintain a balanced arrangement of land uses by promoting development according to the adopted land use map.

Direct new residential and non-residential development to areas planned for such uses, so that land patterns maximize the efficiency of public services and protect and reinforce existing land uses.

Provide infill development of vacant parcels so that it is compatible in design, character, function and scale with adjacent uses.

Assure that the intensity of new development does not overburden existing and planned utility systems, roadways, and services.

Maintain the single-family image and character of Sugar Grove, by promoting new single-family residential subdivisions.

Prevent urban sprawl and protect agricultural lands by limiting residential development to those areas designated by the adopted land use plan.

Provide initiative and support for the preservation on homes and sites of unique character or historical significance (barn structure).

Provide adequate, usable open space, designed to meet the needs of the residents that are accessible by sidewalks and bikeways.

Expand the pedestrian circulation system by providing sidewalks along both sides of all streets.

Ensure that all streets are constructed according to the standards and specifications included in Sugar Grove's Subdivision Code.

Provide active and passive recreation areas within walking distance of all new dwellings, designed to serve the needs of the residential community.

The proposed development is also compatible with the Village's goals, plans and policies for development. As indicated below, the proposed development:

Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of general vicinity, and that such use will not alter the essential character of the same area.

Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighborhood uses.

Will be adequately served by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewers and schools, or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use shall be able to provide adequately any such services.

Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the Village.

Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and/or conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.

Will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as to not create an undue interference with traffic on surrounding public streets or highways.

Will not increase the potential for flood damage to adjacent property, or require additional public expense for flood protection, rescue or relief.

Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural, scenic or historic features of major importance to the Village.

6. NEW BUSINESS - None

7. PLAN COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, PROJECT UPDATES and MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION:

Buening reported the Village Board met the evening before and approved the Special Use for the Main Street property owned by James Ratos who proposed constructing a new building.

Buening told the Commissioners, the Village Board debated the gas station and bank uses with drive throughs. Banks without a drive through would be a permitted use; with a drive through, a special use. Drive through restaurants would have speakers carefully monitored to be certain they were not disturbing.

Beuning said some area towns have placed a moratorium on new banks (Batavia). They take away space that could generate taxes.

The Village Board reviewed the development plans and directed the Village Attorney to also review the project and annexation.

The Village Board approved the enhanced landscaping, but went with a 15' height for the deck as originally petitioned.

The Village Board has taken a straw poll vote on the project. The vote was 4 to 3 in favor of changing the Comprehensive Plan to permit the Stillwater development to proceed. The Board will meet with the petitioner the early part of May.

All were approved, except the Board went to a 28' street width and back to a rolled curb.

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy Zak,

Recording Secretary

     Home •   Contact us